Vikas Sharma vs Shubhkaran Harijan and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present appeal has been filed u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No. 295/2010, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 53,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the alleged accident. In the instant case, it appears that on 10.02.2009 at about 08:45 p.m. the appellant alongwith his father was standing and waiting for crossing the road, in front of Dhamod hospital, and at that time a bus bearing No. RJ-18-PA-0089 driven by the respondent No. 1 came from the Jaipur side, hit the claimant-appellant, as a result thereof, the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record, had awarded Rs. 24,300/- toward the loss of future income assuming his annual income @ Rs. 15,000/- per year and considering the disability to the extent of 13.50%. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 12,882/- towards the mental agony and Rs. 14818/- towards the medical expanses. Thus, the Tribunal in all had awarded Rs. 53,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant with interest @ 7.5% from the date of claim petition, till realization.

The learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Mathur appearing for the appellant, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, , submitted that the notional income of the appellant should have been taken by the Tribunal @ Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. He also submitted that considering the permanent disability sustained by the appellant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very less.

In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that the appellant was only 14 years of age and studying in the school when the accident took place and therefore naturally there would not be any evidence as regards the income. The Tribunal therefore had to proceed with the assumption of notional income as per the schedule given in the M.V. Act. The Tribunal has accordingly assumed the notional income @ Rs. 15,000/- per year. The Tribunal has rightly observed that in absence of any evidence as regards the income of the claimant, the notional income could not be taken as Rs. 3,000/-, as sought to be claimed by the appellant. In the case before the Apex Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased was aged about 35 years and the Apex Court considering the age and other facts of the case had assumed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The said case has no application to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal considering the material available on record, has awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limine.